Abstract

This paper summarizes the arguments and counterarguments within the scientific discussion on the issue of tourist vehicles negative impacts on vegetation biomass, structure, soil infiltration and sensitivity through Off the Road Drive to have closer view of the big five-wildlife of Masai Mara National Reserve, Narok, Kenya. Tourism has been considered as eco-friendly and sustainable business in the contemporary world. Tourists can enjoy the nature and culture and can learn about roles of various ecosystems and biodiversity as well as the cultural heritage of biophysical and socio-cultural environment. In recent decades, the national parks have been considered major attractions to national and international visitors, who love to see the wonder of the wilderness (wildlife, biodiversity, natural and cultural heritage). Through such tourism, the government and local as well as visitor get mutual benefit. However, there is always pros and cons of any activity, if such activities are not managed properly. The main purpose of the research is to show, how tourists willingness (tours operators motive to make tourist happy) to have closer look of big five (African elephant, lion, leopard, Cape buffalo, and rhinoceros) leads off-road driving and how off-road driving can damage the savanna grass ecosystem of Masai Mara ecosystem. Systematization literary sources and approaches for solving the problem is only possible, when such off-road driving is banned. The area where off-road driving is banned since last eight years indicates that damaged area can be improved, however, duration of compacted soil to be normal may take several years. The relevance of the decision of this scientific problem is that off-road driving has negative impact on both fauna and flora. Investigation of the topic Impact of Tourism of Off Road Driving on Vegetation Biomass in the paper is carried out in the following logical sequence: The paper is based on experimental research design and ground truthing. Methodological tools of the research methods were transects approach for the biomass sampling from various sample sites generated randomly and vegetation cover percentages, grass species composition, species sensitivity were measured using appropriate tools. Similarly, surface sealing, soil texture, soil compaction, and water infiltration were measured and compared in the areas where off-road driving was going on (when research was conducted), off-road driving was closed since last one or two years and eight years or more. The object of research is the chosen by researchers own interests. The paper presents the results of an empirical analysis, which showed that different observations and measurements showed that off-road driving has strongly (negative) significant impact, which has decreased vegetation biomass. Compared to ORD impact, other environmental factors do not have a significant impact. The results also showed that management (area closure for ORD) has a significant positive impact on the improvement of the damaged area. However, it was found that the vegetation recovery after the closure for ORD was very slow. The research empirically confirms and theoretically proves that off-road driving has negative impact on soil and vegetation. The results of the research can be useful for the proper management of national parks and wildlife reserves as well gives new insights to the park tourism industry.

Keywords: tourism, off road driving, biomass, impact, closed and open areas.

JEL Classification: L83.

Cite as: Bhandari, M. P. (2018). Impact of Tourism of Off Road Driving on Vegetation Biomass, a Case Study of Masai Mara National Reserve, Narok, Kenya. SocioEconomic Challenges, 3(2), 6-25. DOI: 10.21272/sec.3(2).6-25.2018

References

1. Amuyunzu, C. (1984). Land resources inventory as a basis for Land Evaluation and Rural Development: The role of remote sensing techniques. Narok District, Kenya. M.Sc. Thesis, ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.
2. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (2004-2005). Off Road Vehicle Use http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php?link=orvs.
3. Baldwin, M. F. And D. Stoddard Jr. (1973). The Off-Road Vehicle and Environmental Quality, pp. 8-27. Second Edition. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA.
4. Baldwin, M. F. (1970). The Off-Road Vehicle and Environmental Quality: A report on the Social and Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles, Particularly Snowmobiles, with Suggested Policies for their Control. Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C., USA.
5. Belnap, J. (2002). Impacts of off-road vehicles on nitrogen cycles in biological soil crusts: resistance in different U.S. deserts. Journal of Arid Environments, 52, 155–165.
6. Bhandari, Medani P. (1998). Assessing the Impact of off road Driving in Masai Mara National Park, Narok, Kenya. M.Sc. Thesis, ITC, the Netherlands.
7. Bhandari, Medani P. (2014). Is Tourism Always Beneficial? A Case Study from Masai Mara, National Reserve, Narok, Kenya. Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 15(1), 458-483.
8. Brander, R. B. (1971). Longevity of wild Porcupines, J. Mammal., 52, 835.
9. Bury, R. B. (1980). What we know and do not know about off-road vehicle impacts on Wildlife. R.N.L. Andrews and P. Nowak, editors. Off-Road Vehicle Use: A Management Challenge. (Univ. of Michigan Extension Service) Michigan League. The University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources. USDA The Office of Environmental Quality.
10. CBS (2000-2014). Central Bureau of Statistics of Kenya, Kenyalogy, Kenya Wildlife Service.
11. Davidson, Deb Kemon (2005). The Sound and Fury of National Forest Travel Planning Will the Future Be So Loud That You’ll Need to Wear Earplugs in Our National Forests? American Wildlands, Montana. Conservation Environment (1988), 13. Available at: http://www.wildlands.org/foresttravel.html.
12. Forest info (2005). Forest Information Update, 6(25), 20 June 2005.
13. Georgia Forest watch Studies (2005). ORV Impact on Chattahoochee National Forest. Available at: http://www.gafw.org/orv_impact_study.htm.
14. Illinois Action Project (2001-2005). Off Road Vehicles Out of Control. Available at: http://www.illinoisactionproject.org/showalert.asp?aaid=308 July 20, 2005.
15. McCool, C. (1981). Catching wild livestock and feral animals-some of the problems. Northern Territory Division of Agriculture and Stock, Technical Bulletin No. 36.
16. Sawyer et al. (2005). Cumulative Effect Assessment On Alberta’s Southern Eastern Slopes. Available at: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:u2X0x16KqiMJ:www.hayduke.ca/science/effects.html+evidence+of+protected+area+damage+due+to+the+recreational+activities&hl=en (downloaded July 11, 2005).
17. Sheridan, D. (1979). Off-road vehicles on public land. Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office. Report No. 041-011-00041-6.
18. Siskiyou Wild Rivers Campaign, (2005). Off-road vehicles, Siskiyou Project. 917 SW Oak, Suite 407, Portland, OR 97205. Available at: http://www.siskiyou.org/swrc/threats/logging.cfm.
19. State Environmental Resource Center, Madison, Wisconsin- (2003). Available at: http://www.serconline.org/orv/talking.html.
20. Walpole et al. (2003). Wildlife and People: Conflict and Conservation in Masai Mara, Kenya. IIED, UK, and Mara Count Project 2002.
21. Walpole, M., Karanja, G.G., Sitati, N.W. and Leader-Williuams, N. (2003). Wildlife and People: Conflict and Conservation in Masai Mara, Kenya. Wildlife and Development Series No. 14, International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK.
22. Walpole, M.J. and Leader-William, N. (2001). Masai Mara Tourism Reveals Partnership Benefits. Nature, 413: 771 (25 October 2001). doi:10.1038/35101762.